Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. We welcome the petition. Are members content to keep it open and to begin our investigations by following the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we have covered the ground at this stage, mainly. Will we get that evidence first? I am just trying to think where we want to be sequentially—

There seems to be a fairly consensual view among colleagues. Are members content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I wonder whether there should be a flavour of something else in our approach. Obviously, the Government has made its argument, but for people not covered by the inquiry’s scope, the inference is that the abuse that they suffered is not worthy of an inquiry in its own right or further investigation. I think that that is an unfortunate conclusion. It might well be that, as Fergus Ewing suggests, the Government is going to touch on this matter in a different way, but it would be helpful to invite it to spell out why it feels that way. We as a committee are going to have to go back to the petitioner and say, in essence, that the issue that they have identified is not thought by the Government sufficiently serious to warrant its investigating it in a formal way. That is not a conclusion with which the Government should be comfortable.

Is the committee content?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition remains open. I am hopeful that Parliament will be able to influence its outcome and advance its aim as we proceed; let us hope that we do. I thank Monica Lennon for her on-going interest and the petitioner for all the interest that she shows. I appreciated having an opportunity to read the response that the petitioner received from the Lord Advocate, which was economical in respect of the issue. The opportunity to advance the aims of the petition exists, so thank you, everybody.

PE1955, which was lodged by John Wood, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that local authorities provide good-quality, clean and accessible public toilets by placing a statutory duty on local authorities to provide adequate such toilets and? ensuring that sufficient funding is available for local authorities to meet that requirement.?

Since our last consideration of the petition, we have received information from Highland Council and Aberdeenshire Council about their use of the comfort scheme. Members will recall that that is a voluntary scheme whereby businesses and organisations can obtain grants when they register to become providers of toilet facilities. The written submissions provide information about how many businesses and organisations are registered, the cost of the scheme to local authorities and their approach to advertising the existence of the scheme.

The Scottish Government has provided information about the rural tourism infrastructure fund as it relates to public toilets. Although that information has been useful for the committee in understanding the current landscape and alternative routes for providing facilities, the petitioner stressed the importance of the petition’s main ask. The petitioner does not feel that the comfort scheme is a satisfactory alternative and feels that

“the rural tourism infrastructure fund is not an appropriate source of funding for a basic public service”.

He has reiterated that

“public toilets are a basic requirement of public health and hygiene”,

stating that

“only a statutory duty and ... sufficient revenue will provide”

that requirement.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions to make?

Well, we are not closing the petition, then. Mr Ewing, do you have any further reflection? We now have two colleagues suggesting that we close the petition and two colleagues who would prefer to have a further go at drawing the latest matters to the Government’s attention.

Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee—our first meeting after the summer recess, which I hope all have enjoyed, notwithstanding the weather.

Our first item is a declaration of interests. As members will recall, our colleague Alexander Stewart has left the committee. We were able to thank him for his work when he was last with us. I gather that Alexander will be able to join us at the launch next week of our public participation and democracy inquiry. In his stead, we welcome our new colleague, Maurice Golden, and offer him the opportunity to refer to any interests.

Would you be content, Mr Choudhury, if we closed the petition but sent a further letter to the Government, highlighting the issues as you have described them and saying that, although we have noted what the Government has said and recognise that it is unlikely to change its mind, this is a matter of concern and we think that it is worth the Government being aware of the continuing difficulties that are arising? Would that help?

Thank you very much. Fergus Ewing engaged in the discussion when we last considered the petitions, and he is keen to comment.